More Later
Posted by: graemebird | October 4, 2010
The Use Of Water Purifying Oxidisers To Kill Infections In The Human Body.
Posted in Uncategorized
A Better World: Graeme Bird For High Office
Dearest blog. Cheapest Thinktank. Deepest Philosopher. Most Holistic Prophet..
A Better World: Graeme Bird For High Office 
“Steve as for the acidification of the Earth’s oceans, again provide me with facts that CO2 is the only cause. I note the word ‘may’ be the cause in John H’s post. ‘May’ does not scream ‘is’ to me.
(What is up with The Cat server today? Is it on a go slow strike?)”
The oceans are not acidifying. This is just more lies. If they were acidifying we would have the evidence for this. But these guys are lying to us and partly by omission.
For example they just completed a new survey of marine life. If they are going hither and yon to more adequately document the totality of marine life obviously they would not waste the opportunity to find evidence for ocean acidification. But since the ocean is not experiencing a falling pH, the only studies you get are in some isolated coastal area, and they don’t show falling pH either, but there are all these various excuses for WHY they don’t show falling pH.
So in short there is no problem. Its just another lie. Nor is there a good apriori case for a problem.
By: graemebird on October 7, 2010
at 1:15 pm
The Swedish bloke who busted the IPCC lying about rising seas reckoned that the sea level did rise from about 1890 to 1930. But he said I think, that sea level rise didn’t resume again until about 1970,
In the first instance one would imagine the water cycle ought to cause the land areas to drop. Everything now ought to be underwater or just barely poking out of the water. The whole world ought to be an archipelago, if we weren’t having to replenish our atmosphere the entire time, and if the earth wasn’t expanding.
Or so we would think in the first instance anyhow.
People have the idea of the plants drawing up materials from the roots. They think that part of the soil goes up to cause the leaves and other materials to grow. Then the leaves fall, and what was taken from the soil is returned to the soil in the form of rotting leaves.
But this is not what happens. The vast majority of what is needed for growth comes STRAIGHT OUT OF THE AIR. Only water and a relatively tiny amount of minerals comes up through the roots. Most of the other gear that is needed for plant growth comes entirely out of the atmosphere from the CO2 that is mixed up with the other gases.
When the leaves fall and rot they are not returning the materials that were brought up through the roots. RATHER THEY ARE ADDING NEW MATERIALS.
Now everyone will say “ho ho I knew that”. But this is not the reality. Always nature adds new layers to the continents. Where the growing earth has split the continents asunder, say in a “rift valley” there we see the fossils going back in time and the deeper you go the older it is.
So the earth keeps growing. And some of the growth depends on the expansion that is coming from new matter creation deep within. But some of the expansion is coming from the plant-life that dwells on the continents.
Supposing the earth wasn’t growing and we weren’t losing hydrogen and oxygen to deep space. And supposing we had no plant life. Then what we would see is that the continents would be worn down to islands.
So we retain our land masses for two reasons. The plants keep adding to the land masses via photosynthesis. But on top of that the earth keeps expanding, and oxygen and hydrogen more readily escape to space then most other elements.
So we have to assume that the over-riding trend is for land mass to increase. But the oceans will increase in size disproportionately more. Were we not in an ice age one supposes that we would see the seas receding all the time, but the oceans growing larger just the same.
Surely there can be no doubt that we lose and must replenish atmosphere the entire time?
Someone tell me how it could even POSSIBLY be otherwise?
By: graemebird on October 7, 2010
at 1:33 pm
By: graemebird on October 7, 2010
at 1:42 pm
The greatest extemporaneous speaker I’ve been witness to, speaking in my life-time is THIS MAN.
If you go back to when THIS MAN still thought that the now totally corrupt Republican party was worth working within, you will see that his speeches are like the speeches of a prophet.
THIS MAN is way over-qualified to be President. I don’t know if age would undermine that judgement. What I know for sure is that when he was younger he had it all. He had everything you would need to be the greatest statesman of the era.
So cronytown went to work on his personal brand-name and now his name has been degraded to the point where people think of him as some sort of circus clown.
You see I don’t think he’s lost any of his skills and strengths. I still think “he’s the man.”
Certainly he’s the only fellow I ever did see best Ron Paul in any of the Presidential debates.
I don’t suspect that Alan Keyes is a big beer drinker. But he of course would know that if he is in Sydney he would never need to buy his own beers.
By: graemebird on October 7, 2010
at 2:10 pm
By: graemebird on October 7, 2010
at 2:45 pm
Ambassador Keyes is truly a Righteous Man.
Why can’t we have a man like him in the White House instead of that long legged Mack Daddy Adolph B. Hussein Obama-Soetoro?
By: Rand Pauline Hansons on October 7, 2010
at 9:44 pm
They wouldn’t chose the best candidate they could at each stage of the process Ron. When you follow the mantra “but he cannot win” you are really conceding that he’s the best candidate. And by this process of excluding the best candidate you wind up with a candidate that really cannot win. Its the same wicked mentality that says “A price on carbon is inevitable.” Its promoting the third worst policy when you ought to be promoting the first and second best. Ron Paul and Alan Keyes were the two best candidates and anyone who had any sense would have promoted both of these guys.
By: graemebird on October 7, 2010
at 11:44 pm
BULLSHIT. YOU DON’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT. YOU LEECH ONTO ANY LEFTIST PUTDOWN THAT IS AVAILABLE. OF COURSE THE SHEEPLE ARE GOING TO USE ANYTHING THEY CAN AGAINST HIM. FAMILY QUARRELS. ANYTHING AT ALL. THEY WILL USE ANYTHING NO MATTER HOW UNTRUE, OLD HAT, OR IMPLAUSIBLE. THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING HERE AFTER ALL.
By: Genghis Sun on October 7, 2010
at 10:03 pm
Mr B
stupid vs evil revisited
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2010/10/08/congestion-pricing/
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on October 8, 2010
at 12:40 am
Yeah exactly. And its a funny juxtaposition isn’t it. Here the idiot Ken Henry takes the evil side of the argument when he’s normally stupid. Whereas Ergas, who is normally good and intelligent, finds he is twisting himself in knots in order to take the stupid side of the argument.
What he ought to do is point out that the other side is evil and not to be trusted. Not that the core economic case is not there. This is a case he really cannot make.
By: graemebird on October 8, 2010
at 12:49 am
Once you have so much traffic that the totality of traffic flow is actually reduced then clearly you have congestion. It might seem counter-intuitive but if the cars are too close together you wind up with less travelling being done. Well this is congestion.
I myself want to bring the cost of travelling down. Want to make it easier for people to own cars. To own multiple cars. And to drive them.
The idea then is to take costs off registration, fuel and insurance, and to put the costs almost exclusively on congestion.
If we go ahead with congestion tax this will not happen. What will happen instead is that Ken Henry and the others will make it more expensive to drive your car. To own a car. And to own multiple cars.
We saw this with the state government. Immediately after I last pointed out the evil versus stupid nature of this argument, our state government whacked what it called a congestion tax on the harbour bridge. It was an evil scheme to try and rip money off people, make driving more expensive, and re-route traffic to their cronies under the water.
But they used the language of the congestion tax. They said they were sending “a price signal.” Did they make travelling cheaper overall? No. Did they encourage business to alter their rosters? To get people driving over the bridge before six and after 10.00am? No.
No they just hurt people the bastards. If they had wanted to help people they would have given them an opportunity to avoid the charges entirely. But they didn’t do this. There can be barely any traffic going across the bridge and these bastards will still make you pay the toll. Its like they cannot make up their mind whether they are Cliff Richard or Def Leopard. Is it a socialist bridge or not? If its a socialist bridge the benefits come with profiteering during peak-time and giving us a free ride the rest of the time.
By: graemebird on October 8, 2010
at 1:28 am
greedy money grubbing fractional reserve bastards
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on October 8, 2010
at 1:48 am
Anytime we can reduce the cost of transport we ought to do this and claw some of the money back on congestion. So you can take taxes off excise or tariffs on cars and motorbikes, and claw some of it back on congestion. You can make driving taxi’s and trucks a non-taxable occupation and then claw some money back on congestion.
This is not to say that congestion taxes are not useful even if little money is raised and few people are paying the taxes. If the congestion tax and a loophole for motorcycle riders mean that in peak-time most of the vehicles on the roads are motorbikes the congestion is eased, without even raising much money.
By: graemebird on October 8, 2010
at 2:04 am
My new scheme for losing weight it going well. Down from a 104 to 96.5 and still falling. I’ll be a bit of a fatty until I’m in the mid-80s. The stomach has almost flattened. But the face is still a bit puffy.
By: graemebird on October 8, 2010
at 2:12 am
Good on you. I bet you are feeling good for that too.
It’s funny though and worth remembering that most of us look in the mirror at any age and see some fault or other even when we are healthy and beautiful, thinking there’s something missing or deficient.
But that’s an essential and always creative element of being human: that we’re always striving for more, and to be better, and not necessarily just in an individual way, but as a collective, as a species.
By: Philomena on October 8, 2010
at 8:07 am
From unleashed on moderation:
I don’t know why it is so hard to convince people of the obvious …. that this movement is based only on rampant fraud and lying. But at least in New Zealand the rigging of the data has been exposed:
“In the climate controversy dubbed Kiwigate New Zealand skeptics inflict shock courtroom defeat on climatologists implicated in temperature data fraud.”
The New Zealanders ought to be pretty proud of this development. Since whilst all the main outfits in the Northern Hemisphere are practicing appalling data fraud, so far this is the first time any dataset has been found to be fraudulent in a courtroom.
NOAA, Hadley and Goddard are all compiling rigged data-sets. They appear to be immune from any punishment for this behavior. What can be done about this? Hopefully people will see that the New Zealand example is standard.
By: graemebird on October 9, 2010
at 1:15 am
How is Geoff Huegills form? An inspiration for fatty’s everywhere. I wasn’t taking much interest in the games but that was an awesome swim.
By: graemebird on October 9, 2010
at 1:18 am
“Kiwigate appears to match Climategate in three essential characteristics. First, climate scientists declined to submit their data for independent analysis. Second, when backed into a corner the scientists claimed their adjustments had been ‘lost’. Third, the raw data itself proves no warming trend. Thus we may reasonably infer a ‘carbon copy’ of Climategate.”
This is the same with the raw data for the Northern Hemisphere. We see that the 30’s are the warmest decade on record. Not the nineties. Not this decade. The 30’s. Clearly this makes a mockery of the global warming frauds mindlessly simplistic, watts-per-square metre model. All that extra CO2 and yet we are cooler than the thirties.
By: graemebird on October 9, 2010
at 1:37 am
“The Murray-Darling Basin Guide: Bunfight Guaranteed”
Whereas the congestion tax argument is divided between the stupid side and the evil side this water business is split up into the purely evil, vicious, and pretty stupid, into the stunned and disbelieving. These people are just fucking useless. Given the task of sorting out a pricing system for water they instead come up with a scheme to destroy economic activity in 14% of the continent. I mean they are just so fucking hopeless.
“THE Murray-Darling Basin Authority has released its guide to the draft plan. It recommends drastic cuts of between 27 per cent and 37 per cent in water entitlements for consumptive use (mainly irrigation) across the basin……”
Since when has this been about using less water the fucking morons? When has rational pricing meant using less of something? Its just like the fucking evil congestion tax advocates. I see congestion tax in the context of getting more driving done, more quickly, at a cheaper price. I see having a pricing scheme for water as using more water, producing more agricultural output, at the same time as the river maintaining some sort of minimum flow pretty much the whole time.
Not these people. How can let these lunatics ruin the lives of everyone who lives along the Murray-Darling basin? These people are a fucking plague. We’ve got to do something about this menace as fast as possible. And look how our rightist economists are at a loss. Because they’ve all decided that we are supposed to lose our food production. Because they don’t understand economics they get wild ideas in their minds like the idea that food production is supposed to go overseas. Africa or something. So we have now 100’s of small towns, about to go to the wall because of this lunacy, and they don’t have a great deal to say about it.
“…..This amounts to between 3000 and 4000 gigalitres of surface water being clawed back annually. There was a time when the Wentworth Group – a key environment group – proposed cuts of 1500GL….”
Where are economists in response to this madness? We weren’t supposed to reduce the amount of water used. Does the farmer pump water when its raining and when the river is high? No he doesn’t. Why not? Water doesn’t have a price. The farmer pumps the water when the river is low. Why? Because if its raining he doesn’t need to pump the fucking water. So the idea is not to destroy the farmers. This is what these lunatics are going to do. Destroy the farmers who are in any sort of debt. But the whole idea of pricing was simply to reverse the above logic. Under rational pricing, the farmer would pump when it was raining. Why? Because thats when the water would be free. Now is he going to acheive this? He’s going to invest in his own water storage and pumping capacity.
So we don’t need to starve him off. Quite the contrary. He needs more investment resources so that he can build the capacity, to pump when its raining, and not pump when the river is too low to flow.
This is just such a monumental fuckup in policy, and economic thought, that it brings ALL our education into question.
By: graemebird on October 11, 2010
at 4:27 am
Water is the new oil Graeme. It’s ain’t free anymore and no one has a right to expect that, most of all farmers and miners who have despoiled rivers now for so long without care or understanding of this precious finite resource in this the oldest and driest continent in the world.
The broader community has woken up to the river facts which environmentalists have been banging on about for so long. About time. And evidence of this is among other things that one in 9 people gave a first preference vote to the Greens in the last election.
By: Philomena on October 11, 2010
at 5:49 am
Thats what I think also. Water is the new oil. I’m going to steal that one for sure. Now you would say that the farmers and miners have been wrecking things. But thats what you would expect to happen with a lack of rational pricing. Furthermore it will go on happening under any plans the current lunatics will produce. Since if restricted to these smaller water allocations, yet without rational pricing, the farmers will be forced to hold of and hold off …. then just when the river really needs water they will all pump at once, and they will likely do more than the normal amount of destruction. So these monsters affecting to make policy now will end up destroying agricultural output, and the river ecology will STILL be hurt. In fact the water ecology can be predicted to be whacked unmercifully just about the time it needs every last drop of water it can get.
This is why communism doesn’t work when its tried. There are all these paradoxes to pricing that show up when rational pricing is not present.
By: graemebird on October 11, 2010
at 6:14 am
What do you mean by rational pricing? And how is such a beast to be realised?
Prices increase when the inputs to the means of production cost more or are scarce.
Prices for agricultural production in Australia have always been influenced not just by access to water, a natural and common resource, but also to a large degree by the uncontrollable vicissitudes attendant on being produced in a continent subject to extreme weather conditions, such as prolonged drought, pest infection, torrential storms, etc.
The best of our agricultural product today is already mainly bought and afforded by, indeed to a large extent produced for the relatively wealthy here and o/s, including products such as oil, meat, farmed fish, nuts, wine, cotton, rice, etc.
By: Philomena on October 11, 2010
at 6:27 am
When its raining or the river is high you allow pumping out of the rivers free. When the river is getting close to being so low it doesn’t flow the price of pumping water has to steadily increase.
Once the pricing is in place and by taking the farmer and his employees out of the tax system, those farmers who are viable will be virtually forced to come up with a water plan in their own interests. It might mean going with low water using crops. But in most cases it will mean investment in water pumping and storage gear. Because its not how much you take out of the Murray that counts. Its WHEN you take it out.
By: graemebird on October 11, 2010
at 6:33 am
Interfering with natural river systems has massive costs not merely in the execution. Diverting and damming rivers has horrendous destructive ecological consequences we’ve unfortunately learntabout probably too late in Australia as the latest MDB rescue program pitifully demonstrates.
Of course rivers in their natural state flood in heavy prolonged rains. But that flooding plays an indispensable part in fertilising the soil of the river plains, the very areas in which agriculture is most productive. We dam and divert river waters at our peril, that’s the great lesson we’ve learnt.
All that is happening now is a bit of peripheral damage control for the benefit of the future generations of people inhabiting this continent. Of course such a consideration takes planning beyond immediate, short-term considerations and the greed of the profitmaking elite. Which is why the left has it all over the right on such matters.
By: Philomena on October 11, 2010
at 6:43 am
But not all interventions are equal surely. I mean supposing you get the priCING right. And we have many years of investment inspired by these tax exemptions and priCING. So we come back to the situation, and these guys are pumping as soon as it begins to rain. Or if the water level is real high from rain upstream.
So we essentially get a reversal of current pumping norms. Now this is not going to do the damage that the opposite pumping regime is.
By: graemebird on October 11, 2010
at 7:03 am
Hey Graeme, this is a true story. I visited the Barmah forests on the NSW-Vic border a couple of years ago, where there happens to be a small Aboriginal community and cultural heritage centre. Anyhoo, turns out that land title allows adjacent farmers to graze their cattle through this tiny slice of Aboriginal land along the Murray, of course in the process they continue to destroy Aboriginal sites and further degrade the river banks and plain which now predominantly feature dying red gums. A truly horrible sight.
I bought a few red gum seeds back to Sydney and propagated them and gave them to friends with big back yards, mostly out of the inner city. A small and hopeless gesture probably but it sure made me feel better and they were overjoyed to have a river red gum to grow from seedling. To die for trees.
By: Philomena on October 11, 2010
at 6:54 am
I question whether there ought to be any, or very much private property right on the riverbank or on the coast. Homesteading theory would suggest that people are unlikely, or seldom, going to improve the site sufficiently to justify roping it off from all others.
But I think you ought to be able to stick a pipe in the river and pump water for free if the river is high enough.
By: graemebird on October 11, 2010
at 7:05 am
I agree about private land down to the river level but that one bolted long time ago. I had to laugh a few weeks ago crossing a picturesque section of the Williams River, Hunter Valley region and seeing a line strung across the river, “Private Property. No entry”. Sorry, but no-one owns the river and cattle can still be grazed along it in time of drought. Problem is that this piece of very small land given to Murray River Aborigines was not exempt from this provision. It seemed pretty unfair in the scheme of things.
By: Philomena on October 11, 2010
at 7:22 am
“… that one bolted …”
If we are patient we can get it back. Farmers are always getting in financial trouble and buying back very small areas of land ought to be a 200 year plan.
By: graemebird on October 11, 2010
at 7:25 am
What I’m really after is a sort of partial reversal of the enclosure movement. But if an outfit puts a highrise right on the beachfront, to me thats okay. Because that would constitute sufficient homesteading to justify the private property. But under no circumstances could he fence off the beach.
By: graemebird on October 11, 2010
at 7:33 am
Whoever wants to put a highrise on the beach front these days is welcome to it as are the suckers who buy into it. But then maybe they’re genuine ocean lovers who like the thought of the waves lapping the building’s toes, calves, knees, groin…
By: Philomena on October 11, 2010
at 7:45 am
And free market economic advocates can’t now try to buy into environmental arguments and case studies or real-life projects such as the MDB rescue. Sorry, such dudes have zero credibility or understanding of these issues which is why no-one is listening to them, they’re not even interested or genuinely informed and the dregs of that social grouplet can post drivel all day every day on a blog like Catallaxy.
It keeps those impotent dummies occupied and out of harm’s way. All good.
By: Philomena on October 11, 2010
at 8:24 am
all jew bastards, philomena.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on October 25, 2010
at 5:04 am
Well I don’t know about “free enterprise people.” But if the situation isn’t rescued, as I demonstrated, these environmentalists are going to destroy the area economically, knee-cap our food production, and not change all that much the harm being done to the river.
I mean they are really going to fuck it up bigtime. It amounts to a national crisis if these people are let anywhere near the situation.
By: graemebird on October 11, 2010
at 10:02 am
We see that enriching of the rural sector through tax exemption …. combined with really twisting their arms on water pricing, would lead a situation where irrigation WAS ALWAYS AND EVERYWHERE A TWO-STEP PROCESS.
Since you would pump from the river when it was raining or when the river was high ….. and you would refrain from doing so when the river was low or when there were drought conditions …… it then follows that you pump from the river at a different time to when you actually use the water.
Its this two-step notion of irrigation that is the key here. And it could mean that the farmers would take considerably more water than before, and yet the river would stay healthy.
Now clearly this would take years of investment in order to effect this benign situation completely. The answer lies in investment. But the people on both sides of this debate seem to think its the river or its the farmers. They appear to believe that the river is served by the Darwinian destruction of the farmers, and not by capital investment BY the farmers.
We see a mentality here that would destroy everything right up until the point where their own livelihoods were in jeopardy.
Note something else strange. You will not have seen people talking in this way about water. They will talk about pricing the water. But not about the reversal of behavior as to the timing of when the farmer pumps the water. And nowhere have we seen anyone talking about actually INCREASING the amount of water to be taken from the rivers.
By: graemebird on October 11, 2010
at 12:07 pm
Moderated from elsewhere:
I was just about to disagree with everything you said until you came up with this:
“It should only be the Reserve Bank that prints money.”
Thats the spirit alright.
Now a little carping. Its the mint that currently prints the money. The Reserve bank that orders up the printing. But it tends to make this printing automatic and legally mandated, so that every facet of the “crime” is separate, both in time and place, and therefore hard for people to think about conceptually. In order to get away with the immorality of what they do they have different arms of the racket involving themselves with individual tasks, and those tasks separated in time and place.
It would have been more technically correct had you said:
“It should only be the Reserve Bank that CREATES money.”
But while this is very much the right idea, it is the case that the Reserve Bank must be wound up. The Reserve Bank is a creature of the finance industry. There is no possibility of reforming it. We would have to replace it with a currency board of humble people. People without any connection to, or affinity for, the banks.
The currency board would be banned from attaching new money creation to debt. Money must never again be debt. The currency board would have to do things in the most transparent way possible and the cash they ordered printed would have to go straight to the treasury, or if treasury weren’t ready to spend it, into debt reduction.
People don’t understand the seriousness of this. This goes beyond left and right. The banking system is a more formidable opponent then the Soviet Union or international jihad ever was. Even if it might not seem that this is the case in the Southern Hemisphere.
One thing we ought to aim at also is to make PTY LTD imply 100% equity finance. This would have wide-ranging implications for all commerce. But what it would mean for this banks is the following:
Since the banks stock and trade is debt, then this would imply unlimited liability to the banking partners. As a consequence most banking would become local. Banking would be all about creating wealth locally.
By: graemebird on October 26, 2010
at 9:31 am